I'm not sure what you are expecting the journalist or the source to do. The journalist can't reveal their source because a) they would lose their source because b) the source would fired and/or put in jail.
I'm not sure if you understand how anonymous sources work, making a statement such the one you did. Journalists either know their sources directly OR they at minimum verify one way or another that their source actually has access to the information they claim, even if they don't know their actual identity. It's what good journalists do and have been doing for decades. This isn't some new process.
It seems you have a worldview such that, the journalist receives a call or email from out of the blue that says something interesting and they just run with it. That's not how these things work in the real world.
If the journalist is being straight up lied to, there's not much we can do about that until the information is made public. However, in the case of WaPo they have some of the highest standards in the industry. So if the information is verified to be false, they will issue a retraction.
Honestly, I don't believe it was Russia. I think it was me and citizens alike. If people are being straight up lied to by a reporter, who comes across unreliable information, it causes consequences. It doesn't matter if its retracted later. It seems to occur frequently. So in todays world, sources are important for credibility especially with organizations like "WaPo". You mean WaPo that has Molesta Podesta on staff? I don't believe anything in reguards to the Russian narrative, when we had the Awan Brothers and the Chinese doing the same, yet thats not reported.
view the rest of the comments →
Gothamgirl ago
"2 people familiar with the inquiry" I just find terms like this make the whole story unreliable, if they can't name their sources.
stewmangroup ago
I'm not sure what you are expecting the journalist or the source to do. The journalist can't reveal their source because a) they would lose their source because b) the source would fired and/or put in jail.
I'm not sure if you understand how anonymous sources work, making a statement such the one you did. Journalists either know their sources directly OR they at minimum verify one way or another that their source actually has access to the information they claim, even if they don't know their actual identity. It's what good journalists do and have been doing for decades. This isn't some new process.
It seems you have a worldview such that, the journalist receives a call or email from out of the blue that says something interesting and they just run with it. That's not how these things work in the real world.
If the journalist is being straight up lied to, there's not much we can do about that until the information is made public. However, in the case of WaPo they have some of the highest standards in the industry. So if the information is verified to be false, they will issue a retraction.
Gothamgirl ago
Honestly, I don't believe it was Russia. I think it was me and citizens alike. If people are being straight up lied to by a reporter, who comes across unreliable information, it causes consequences. It doesn't matter if its retracted later. It seems to occur frequently. So in todays world, sources are important for credibility especially with organizations like "WaPo". You mean WaPo that has Molesta Podesta on staff? I don't believe anything in reguards to the Russian narrative, when we had the Awan Brothers and the Chinese doing the same, yet thats not reported.
stewmangroup ago
Have you not watched any of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings?